Tupolev Tu-22M Backfire

Archibald said:
They did eject. Crew was recovered alive.
Click to expand...
Not so much, 1 dead, 2 injured, 1 MIA.

www.themoscowtimes.com

Russian Long-Range Strategic Bomber Crashes, Ukraine Claims Responsibility - The Moscow Times

Ukraine said Friday that, for the first time since Russia's invasion, it had downed a Russian long-range bomber used to fire cruise missiles at cities across the war-battered country.
www.themoscowtimes.com www.themoscowtimes.com
 
Archibald said:
Seems to be a S-200, that is a SA-5 GAMMON: somewhat like the second A-50 shot down late February.

gagadget.com

Channel 24 : Le bombardier stratégique Tu-22M3 a été abattu à l'aide du système de missiles sol-air S-200

Nos collègues de Channel 24, citant leur source au sein de la Direction principale des renseignements de l'Ukraine, ont rapporté que l'armée de l'air avait abattu un bombardier stratégique russe Tu-22M3.
gagadget.com gagadget.com
Click to expand...

I would take Ukrainian Ministry of Defense claims with a grain of salt. They also recently claimed responsibility for a fire on a Russian Navy ship in the Baltic, for example, which seems rather improbable (why waste effort in the Baltic on a ship that can not participate in the Russia-Ukraine war?)
 
At a guess, autopilot control (to maximise efficiency) to a pre-determined kill box, followed by active terminal guidance. Not that dissimilar to a NTU era SM2.

Suspect lax Russian operational security meant crews have been flying the same routes night after night, giving the Ukrainians the precise when and where for the missile to be to maximise the probability of a hit.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Paint Russian marking on the truck and drive it in?
Click to expand...
That's one way of doing it I suppose.

Forest Green said:
Satellites capable of guiding SAMs OTH?
Click to expand...
It's possible, but the S-200 is SARH though.

If they did shoot it down, then it's possible they've updated it in some way, they have claimed to down aircraft in the past, notable the A-50s, but it's hard to see how possible it is given the distance. Maybe they gave them active seeker heads and fired them on well-travelled routes? It's still a very remote possibility though.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1781223014278877458
View: https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1781223014278877458?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1781246939532603440%7Ctwgr%5E5d0b2382d7338ba653b176c94e2f3ea852902b73%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.twz.com%2Fair%2Frussian-tu-22m3-backfire-shot-down-with-s-200-missile-ukraines-spy-chief


https://twitter.com/x/status/1781246939532603440
View: https://twitter.com/ChungTzuW/status/1781246939532603440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1781246939532603440%7Ctwgr%5E5d0b2382d7338ba653b176c94e2f3ea852902b73%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.twz.com%2Fair%2Frussian-tu-22m3-backfire-shot-down-with-s-200-missile-ukraines-spy-chief
 
Well the SA-5 was one of the reasons why SR-71 & A-12 never flew over USSR (along political reasons). With a nuclear warhead it also slained early iterations of ISINGLASS. Convair came to the NRO in 1963 looking for their revenge on A-12 and saying " Mach 3.4 and 95 000 feet ? meh. Pussies. We can do 110 000 ft and Mach 4+" - to which the NRO answered "Sorry, not enough margin against SA-5. Try again !"

So yes, the SA-5 is hardly a Stinger... that thing was big, fast, and long ranged.
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
That's one way of doing it I suppose.
Click to expand...
I'm led to understand that Ukrainian and Russian are *real* close, and that Ukrainians can easily sound like Russians. There are doubtless *many* Ukrainians in Russia with intimate knowledge of the region, the people, infrastructure and military tech. With everything we've seen, simply *stealing* a complete SAM system inside Russia doesn't exactly seem impossible.

So... *maybe.*
 
Orionblamblam said:
I'm led to understand that Ukrainian and Russian are *real* close, and that Ukrainians can easily sound like Russians. There are doubtless *many* Ukrainians in Russia with intimate knowledge of the region, the people, infrastructure and military tech. With everything we've seen, simply *stealing* a complete SAM system inside Russia doesn't exactly seem impossible.

So... *maybe.*
Click to expand...
You should really stop reading Tom Clancy's books after dinner. It's as "not impossible" as english-speaking Chinese-Americans stealing the nuclear submarine from Norfolk to launch Tomahawks against Washington.
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
This is interesting if true, though how on earth would they have been able to guide it in?
Click to expand...
Sigh. Seriously. Your are willing to swallow all Ukrainian propaganda, no matter how impossible or outright ridiculous it is, hook, line and sinker?

The simplest explanation: Ukraine have nothing to do with the bomber crash. They merely declared that it's their doing for purely propaganda purposes.
 
Dilandu said:
You should really stop reading Tom Clancy's books after dinner. It's as "not impossible" as english-speaking Chinese-Americans stealing the nuclear submarine from Norfolk to launch Tomahawks against Washington.
Click to expand...

We've had people steal tanks in the US. Why would it be so impossible for determined Ukrainians to do something similar in Russia?
 
Orionblamblam said:
We've had people steal tanks in the US. Why would it be so impossible for determined Ukrainians to do something similar in Russia?
Click to expand...

Because Russia is not America, because SAM's are not tanks, because such things require specifically trained personnel to operate (far too valuable for Ukraine to send into some "commando raid"), and because it's trench warfare with 24/7 drone controlled frontlines, which made any kind of covert infiltration far too risky to sucseed. Seriously, this is not video game or Hollywood movie.

Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
I was merely asking a question as to whether it was possible or not
Click to expand...
It's improbable.
 
Dilandu said:
You should really stop reading Tom Clancy's books after dinner. It's as "not impossible" as english-speaking Chinese-Americans stealing the nuclear submarine from Norfolk to launch Tomahawks against Washington.
Click to expand...
The Wall of China was crossed by the Mongols simply by bribing the guardians, on the northeastern border of the Roman Empire something similar happened due to the greed of corrupt officials... Why can't the same be true of an easy-to-carry Russian weapons system?
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
It's possible, but the S-200 is SARH though.
Click to expand...

It's definitely not a stock S-200. The missiles are considered good candidates for very complicated modernization programs because they have a fairly decent specific impulse liquid fueled rocket engine, and if you pull out the very obsolete vacuum tube electronics you can free tens of kg of mass and just tons and tons of volume that you can spend on putting some modern guidance package on it. I think the Poles have rebuilt them with both active radar guidance and with radiation-homing seekers.

It's not maneuverable enough to ever hit a fighter jet that's trying to evade (the missile is nearly as big as some small jets), but that's not exactly a problem when shooting at bombers or AWACS planes.
 
bobthemonkey said:
At a guess, autopilot control (to maximise efficiency) to a pre-determined kill box, followed by active terminal guidance. Not that dissimilar to a NTU era SM2.
Click to expand...
AFAIK no SM-2 has had active guidance.
 
Was referring more to the general principle of autopilot/inertial guidance to a pre-defined point before using some form of guidance for the terminal engagement.

SM2 would have been SARH in the NTU era.
 
bobthemonkey said:
Was referring more to the general principle of autopilot/inertial guidance to a pre-defined point before using some form of guidance for the terminal engagement.
Click to expand...

and who will provide correction to the INS drift ? It's still a long flight even with 4300 km speed of the 5V28 missile.

WatcherZero said:
Refit the missile with an infrared seeker perhaps then just put it into a killbox?
Click to expand...

This invites question on how to correct INS drift more prior to engagement tho.

Tuna said:
It's definitely not a stock S-200. The missiles are considered good candidates for very complicated modernization programs because they have a fairly decent specific impulse liquid fueled rocket engine, and if you pull out the very obsolete vacuum tube electronics you can free tens of kg of mass and just tons and tons of volume that you can spend on putting some modern guidance package on it. I think the Poles have rebuilt them with both active radar guidance and with radiation-homing seekers.
Click to expand...

Yeah and i guess nobody really think updating them all these decades because it's liquid fueled.. gonna need a long preparation and fixed site to launch.

The problem with modern guidance package etc.. is that you changed the missile's CG and in the end you need to rework the missile's flight logic. Otherwise it may tumble or actually going too fast which put the gust beyond the missile's own structure can support kinda similar problem with ballistic missile. Also if any form of datalink is needed, then you need to plumb the missile airframe and put radome on it for the datalink antenna and then see if it can work in high speed of the missile. Looks like too much work for several months time tbh.

Tuna said:
think the Poles have rebuilt them with both active radar guidance and with radiation-homing seekers.
Click to expand...

TBH i dont buy into this.. Poland make Radars, yes. But did they make active seeker or even hybrid seeker one ? I wonder why they dont put it in their upgrade package for 2K12.



Overall i enjoyed the theorycrafting so far but.. does it have to be shot down tho ?
 
stealthflanker said:
yeah and Ukrainians wants people to imagine how it can provide constant CW Illumination to the bomber without actually alerting it. One should remember that it's SARH. Even somehow Ukraine can put active radar seeker in it, shooting at such distance, who can provide the mid course as active seeker is not going to be active all the way.
Click to expand...

The Ukrainian's have mentioned that 'partners' helped modify SA-5...could they have added data link functionality that allowed the missile to not rely on illumination until the end game? All the TU-22M (or A-50U) knew was that they had been picked up by a search radar like normal....then they were illuminated at the final moment with little time to react...

I'm not sure we'll know the truth for a long time, both sides have valid reasons to make claims.
 
308km as claimed in the video above.

Regarding terminal guidance, pay attention to the fact that hit point seems localized on the starboard engine nozzle. It doesn't seems also like being the result of a multi-hundreds kilograms warhead detonation or from a Soviet era SAM large fragmention rod.

Last but not least, the bomber is seen going down in a spin, not a nose dive. Hence, pilots might have had a chance to fight to keep it airborne, loosing gradually speed, apparently. It might even have been a voluntary action to enter a safe ejection speed domain.

I think that we might narrow the scenario on two hypothesis:
- Local illumination theory (laser guidance for example or Manpad launcher with a data link),
- Frankenstein missile, with the Sa-5 being used as a booster with a bolted-on terminal guidance build with parts from another one from someone that does not want to be identified.
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
Just thinking about it...

IF the Ukrainian's are telling the truth....this shootdown, or the A-50U must be the longest ranged shootdowns ever by missile?

EDIT: Actually I guess the accidental Siberian Air Flight shootdown also by Ukraine would count...
Click to expand...

Depends whether you consider only SAMs, or include ABMs.
 
timmymagic said:
The Ukrainian's have mentioned that 'partners' helped modify SA-5...could they have added data link functionality that allowed the missile to not rely on illumination until the end game? All the TU-22M (or A-50U) knew was that they had been picked up by a search radar like normal....then they were illuminated at the final moment with little time to react...

I'm not sure we'll know the truth for a long time, both sides have valid reasons to make claims.
Click to expand...
If the Russian bomber's route is sufficiently predictable, you could use a modern INS retrofitted to the SA-5 to get you fairly near it. Its also a very fast flying SAM, so flight time is pretty low. The SA-5 is also big enough for a substantial active radar seeker.

Not saying this claim is correct, but I don't think its impossible.
 
TomcatViP said:
308km as claimed in the video above.
Click to expand...
That must be a combat record.

Archibald said:
Depends whether you consider only SAMs, or include ABMs.
Click to expand...
True. Maybe if we say endo-atmospheric record.

overscan (PaulMM) said:
If the Russian bomber's route is sufficiently predictable, you could use a modern INS retrofitted to the SA-5 to get you fairly near it. Its also a very fast flying SAM, so flight time is pretty low. The SA-5 is also big enough for a substantial active radar seeker.

Not saying this claim is correct, but I don't think its impossible.
Click to expand...
This is a good point, by the end of the Vietnam War, NVA SA-2 radars did not work against jamming at all, but it had a 200kg warhead, so they fired them up and command detonated them at the altitude the bombers flew at.

Of course all this SA-5 talk may just be a cover. I have another theory, but I will keep it quiet just in case it's true.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
That must be a combat record.


True. Maybe if we say endo-atmospheric record.


This is a good point, by the end of the Vietnam War, NVA SA-2 radars did not work against jamming at all, but it had a 200kg warhead, so they fired them up and command detonated them at the altitude the bombers flew at.

Of course all this SA-5 talk may just be a cover. I have another theory, but I will keep it quiet just in case it's true.
Click to expand...
A shame BOMARC wasn't still around. Had the range and the active terminal seeker as well.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
If the Russian bomber's route is sufficiently predictable, you could use a modern INS retrofitted to the SA-5 to get you fairly near it. Its also a very fast flying SAM, so flight time is pretty low. The SA-5 is also big enough for a substantial active radar seeker.
Click to expand...

If the mid-course and terminal guidance has been 'tweaked' then a lofted flight profile would squeeze considerably more range out of the basic airframe, against an non-manoeuvring target.
 
Forest Green said:
This is a good point, by the end of the Vietnam War, NVA SA-2 radars did not work against jamming at all, but it had a 200kg warhead, so they fired them up and command detonated them at the altitude the bombers flew at.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. They used command-to-the-line-of-sight guidance, using radar to track the jamming source. It wasn't exactly the most accurate method, but as you correctly noted - the 200-kg warhead allowed for some error.
 
It looks all the world like a turbine blade disc blew up, caused an engine fire, and the asymmetric thrust put a Backfire into a flat spin.

I guess a 200 kilogram warhead can be very selective in what portion of a plane it decides to not shred though? Tu-22M was lost over Georgia and got turned into pieces in mid-air by ZRK Buk. Tumbling behavior is somewhat expected as radar guided missile will strip control surfaces.

If missiles were involved at all, they would be extremely small like Igla or Stinger, and fired by special reconnaissance team. Yet there is no contrail? Interesting. It is also extremely unusual behavior from an aircraft given the location of flames and apparent damage appears to be internal in nature regardless.

So most likely it ate something it shouldn't have, and the engine blew apart, but perhaps the HUR trained a pigeon?
 
Last edited:
Hand held SAM wouldnt be able to reach a Backfires cruising altitude. The flat spin is indicative of asymmetric thrust so the loss of an engine, however pilots should have been able to compensate if it was a mechanical failure, engine failures were common in the pre-modernisation TU-22 due to poor construction quality of engines and airframes.
 
I'd be surprised if a Tu-22M3 couldn't cope with the loss of one engine and both engines are on the centreline, so asymmetric thrust problems should be minimal and certainly nothing the large rudder couldn't counter. I would also expect the crew to be able to land with one engine down, but as a minimum, I would expect them to be able to eject without dying.

Have they found the fourth crew member yet?
 
Last edited:
So 2 dead based on the Moscow Times statement that 1 was dead while a fourth was missing?

www.yahoo.com

Ukraine claims it shot down a Russian strategic bomber as Moscow's missiles kill 8 Ukrainians

Ukraine’s air force claimed Friday it shot down a Russian strategic bomber, but Moscow officials said the plane crashed in a sparsely populated area due to a malfunction after a combat mission. Previous Ukrainian claims of shooting down Russian warplanes during their more than two-year war have...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom